Barclays Bank Uk Retirement Fund · CAS-81983-B2S6

CAS-81983-B2S6

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr L

Scheme Barclays Bank UK Retirement Fund (the Fund)

Respondents Willis Towers Watson (WTW)

The Barclays Fund Board of Trustees (the Trustee)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

A Payment Instruction Form (PIF) dated 28 October 2021, was sent to WTW. The bank account details provided on the form were not in Mr L’s name.

On 27 January 2022, WTW wrote to Mr L to inform him that it was unable to pay benefits from the Fund into a bank account that was not in his name. WTW explained this was for security reasons, and protection of the Fund’s assets.

On 14 February 2022, Mr L wrote to WTW to say he had arranged a new bank account.

On 19 February 2022, Mr L contacted WTW and said its inflexible rules regarding his nominated bank account had caused him to compromise his personal circumstances.

A new PIF was sent to WTW signed and dated 4 March 2022. This form included the same bank account details as previously provided on the original PIF of 28 October 2021.

1 CAS-81983-B2S6 WTW said Mr L made it clear that he had no intention of opening a bank account in his own name for “personal reasons”.

In July 2022, Mr L invoked stage one of the internal dispute resolution procedure (IDRP). His main complaint was that WTW had not allowed him access to his pension. He said he was being disadvantaged due to his personal circumstance of not wanting a bank account in his own name. He also complained about how his complaint had been handled.

On 16 September 2022, Mr L chased WTW for a response to his complaint under the IDRP. He said he knew WTW had said it could take up to four months to respond, but he wanted an update.

On 21 September 2022, WTW provided its response under stage one of the IDRP. It said it could not uphold Mr L’s complaint. WTW said it was unable to pay benefits into a bank account that did not belong to Mr L. It said it had fiduciary duties to distribute benefits correctly. It said refusing to pay benefits to a third party was a security measure. WTW did not agree that Mr L’s complaint had been handled poorly. It acknowledged there was a slight delay in the IDRP being raised but said this was due to Mr L not making it explicitly clear from the outset that he wanted his complaint to go through IDRP.

Mr L requested that his complaint be reconsidered under stage two of the IDRP. No response was received.

Adjudicator’s Opinion Mr L’s complaint was considered by one of our Adjudicators who concluded that no further action was required by WTW or the Trustee. The Adjudicator’s findings are summarised below:-

2 CAS-81983-B2S6

Mr L did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mr L provided his further comments which do not change the outcome. He said that:-

16.1. He appreciated the Adjudicator’s Opinion but as things stood, he said he did not have anything to lose by having a Determination issued on the case.

I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

Ombudsman’s decision

I do not uphold Mr L’s complaint.

Anthony Arter CBE Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 6 December 2023

3